DIY-HP-LED
Well-Known Member
Let's talk about how Republicans create demand for strict gun laws....
Yesterday's Mass Shooting.
- Thread starter Unclebaldrick
- Start date
Let's talk about how Republicans create demand for strict gun laws....
printer
Well-Known Member
Joe Rogan Slams Trudeau's Gun Comments
Podcaster Joe Rogan strongly criticized Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau for saying recently that Canadians do not have the right to own a gun for self-defense.
On ''The Joe Rogan Experience,'' Rogan played a clip of Trudeau's appearance on the ''Pod Save the World'' podcast and blasted the prime minister for his comments, telling his guest, U.S. gun rights activist Colion Noir, that Trudeau said that ''you don't have the right in Canada to own a gun to protect your life.
''It is one of the most wild things I've ever seen anybody say, because first of all, I don't believe it's true. I don't believe he is correct in terms of what — what do they have up there? They don't have a constitution. It's not the same, whatever it is,'' Rogan said.
Trudeau had stated that Canadians have the right to own a gun only for hunting or sports shooting, as opposed to self-defense, saying that ''there are debates, and we have a culture where the difference is guns can be used for hunting or for sport shooting in Canada. And there's lots of gun owners, and they're mostly law-respecting and law-abiding, but you can't use a gun for self-protection in Canada.
''No, you don't get that. That's not a right that you have in the constitution or anywhere else. If you try and buy a gun and say, it's for self-protection, no, you don't get that. You get it for hunting. You can get it for sport shooting. Take it to the range. Uh, no problem. As long as you go through our rigorous background checks, but there's a difference around the culture.''
Rogan said that he was ''so disgusted'' upon hearing Trudeau's comments that he ''threw his hands up in the air.''
The Canadian Firearms Act states that Canadian citizens are prohibited from obtaining a license to possess a gun to protect themselves or someone else.
Section 5.1 of the law states that ''a person is not eligible to hold a license if it is desirable, in the interests of the safety of that or any other person, that the person not possess a firearm, a cross-bow, a prohibited weapon, a restricted weapon, a prohibited device, ammunition or prohibited ammunition.''
So alien thinking that you are not suppose to shoot your fellow man.
Podcaster Joe Rogan strongly criticized Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau for saying recently that Canadians do not have the right to own a gun for self-defense.
On ''The Joe Rogan Experience,'' Rogan played a clip of Trudeau's appearance on the ''Pod Save the World'' podcast and blasted the prime minister for his comments, telling his guest, U.S. gun rights activist Colion Noir, that Trudeau said that ''you don't have the right in Canada to own a gun to protect your life.
''It is one of the most wild things I've ever seen anybody say, because first of all, I don't believe it's true. I don't believe he is correct in terms of what — what do they have up there? They don't have a constitution. It's not the same, whatever it is,'' Rogan said.
Trudeau had stated that Canadians have the right to own a gun only for hunting or sports shooting, as opposed to self-defense, saying that ''there are debates, and we have a culture where the difference is guns can be used for hunting or for sport shooting in Canada. And there's lots of gun owners, and they're mostly law-respecting and law-abiding, but you can't use a gun for self-protection in Canada.
''No, you don't get that. That's not a right that you have in the constitution or anywhere else. If you try and buy a gun and say, it's for self-protection, no, you don't get that. You get it for hunting. You can get it for sport shooting. Take it to the range. Uh, no problem. As long as you go through our rigorous background checks, but there's a difference around the culture.''
Rogan said that he was ''so disgusted'' upon hearing Trudeau's comments that he ''threw his hands up in the air.''
The Canadian Firearms Act states that Canadian citizens are prohibited from obtaining a license to possess a gun to protect themselves or someone else.
Section 5.1 of the law states that ''a person is not eligible to hold a license if it is desirable, in the interests of the safety of that or any other person, that the person not possess a firearm, a cross-bow, a prohibited weapon, a restricted weapon, a prohibited device, ammunition or prohibited ammunition.''
So alien thinking that you are not suppose to shoot your fellow man.
DIY-HP-LED
Well-Known Member
Let them file down their teeth and grow out their fingernails for weapons, not even an arrow! Don't get caught with a bread knife outside the house.
Roger A. Shrubber
Well-Known Member
this is the fucking stupidest man in broadcasting..." i don't have the faintest idea what kind of government Canada has, or what their constitution promises...but this is wrong...i don't know what kind of government they have, who is in it, what any of it says...but this is wrong"...proof that evil can and does come from ignorance.
Roger A. Shrubber
Well-Known Member
https://www.texastribune.org/2022/06/21/uvalde-shooting-mayor-pete-arredondo/
well why the fuck don't they just release the fucking information already? what the fuck are they trying to hide? who can they be protecting except themselves? at this point, anything they say or do besides releasing ALL RECORDS and information is just bullshit.
well why the fuck don't they just release the fucking information already? what the fuck are they trying to hide? who can they be protecting except themselves? at this point, anything they say or do besides releasing ALL RECORDS and information is just bullshit.
printer
Well-Known Member
But he has a following! And they are dumber than he is.
DIY-HP-LED
Well-Known Member
We have google and five minutes of reading before he opened his pie hole would help.
Fogdog
Well-Known Member
This is like a round in jeopardy. The correct response for $400: What is a circular argument.
DIY-HP-LED
Well-Known Member
printer
Well-Known Member
Trump slams Cornyn as ‘RINO’ for bipartisan Senate deal on guns
Former President Trump on Wednesday slammed Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) as a “RINO,” or “Republican in name only,” over the bipartisan gun safety legislation he’d helped negotiate.
Trump also criticized the bill itself, which senators unveiled Tuesday evening, and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.).
“The deal on ‘Gun Control’ currently being structured and pushed in the Senate by the Radical Left Democrats, with the help of Mitch McConnell, RINO Senator John Cornyn of Texas, and others, will go down in history as the first step in the movement to TAKE YOUR GUNS AWAY. Republicans, be careful what you wish for!!!” Trump wrote on his social platform Truth Social.
The bill negotiated by a bipartisan group of senators includes provisions to close the “boyfriend loophole” by adding dating partners to list of people who would no longer be able to purchase firearms if they are convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence, strengthen background checks for those between 18 and 21 years old, and boost mental health treatment funding.
Fourteen Republican senators voted to advance the bill Tuesday night, including McConnell, though top House Republican leaders have signaled they do not support the legislation.
The development comes less than a week after Cornyn, who has represented Texas in the Senate for almost two decades, was booed at the Texas GOP convention in Houston, particularly while speaking about what might be included in the gun deal.
The moment demonstrated the challenges Republicans may face with their base over the legislation, which came in the wake of several high-profile and fatal mass shootings.
Trump endorsed Cornyn in his 2020 reelection, and the former president’s position on guns has at times changed, including supporting background checks in 2019 and floating the idea in 2018 to “take the guns first, go through due process second” or people considered dangerous.
thehill.com
Former President Trump on Wednesday slammed Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) as a “RINO,” or “Republican in name only,” over the bipartisan gun safety legislation he’d helped negotiate.
Trump also criticized the bill itself, which senators unveiled Tuesday evening, and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.).
“The deal on ‘Gun Control’ currently being structured and pushed in the Senate by the Radical Left Democrats, with the help of Mitch McConnell, RINO Senator John Cornyn of Texas, and others, will go down in history as the first step in the movement to TAKE YOUR GUNS AWAY. Republicans, be careful what you wish for!!!” Trump wrote on his social platform Truth Social.
The bill negotiated by a bipartisan group of senators includes provisions to close the “boyfriend loophole” by adding dating partners to list of people who would no longer be able to purchase firearms if they are convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence, strengthen background checks for those between 18 and 21 years old, and boost mental health treatment funding.
Fourteen Republican senators voted to advance the bill Tuesday night, including McConnell, though top House Republican leaders have signaled they do not support the legislation.
The development comes less than a week after Cornyn, who has represented Texas in the Senate for almost two decades, was booed at the Texas GOP convention in Houston, particularly while speaking about what might be included in the gun deal.
The moment demonstrated the challenges Republicans may face with their base over the legislation, which came in the wake of several high-profile and fatal mass shootings.
Trump endorsed Cornyn in his 2020 reelection, and the former president’s position on guns has at times changed, including supporting background checks in 2019 and floating the idea in 2018 to “take the guns first, go through due process second” or people considered dangerous.
Trump slams Cornyn as ‘RINO’ for bipartisan Senate deal on guns
Former President Trump on Wednesday slammed Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) as a “RINO,” or “Republican in name only,” over the bipartisan gun safety legislation he’d helped negotiate. Trump also …
thehill.com
Roger A. Shrubber
Well-Known Member
if trump hates it, it can't be all bad...Trump slams Cornyn as ‘RINO’ for bipartisan Senate deal on guns
Former President Trump on Wednesday slammed Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) as a “RINO,” or “Republican in name only,” over the bipartisan gun safety legislation he’d helped negotiate.
Trump also criticized the bill itself, which senators unveiled Tuesday evening, and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.).
“The deal on ‘Gun Control’ currently being structured and pushed in the Senate by the Radical Left Democrats, with the help of Mitch McConnell, RINO Senator John Cornyn of Texas, and others, will go down in history as the first step in the movement to TAKE YOUR GUNS AWAY. Republicans, be careful what you wish for!!!” Trump wrote on his social platform Truth Social.
The bill negotiated by a bipartisan group of senators includes provisions to close the “boyfriend loophole” by adding dating partners to list of people who would no longer be able to purchase firearms if they are convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence, strengthen background checks for those between 18 and 21 years old, and boost mental health treatment funding.
Fourteen Republican senators voted to advance the bill Tuesday night, including McConnell, though top House Republican leaders have signaled they do not support the legislation.
The development comes less than a week after Cornyn, who has represented Texas in the Senate for almost two decades, was booed at the Texas GOP convention in Houston, particularly while speaking about what might be included in the gun deal.
The moment demonstrated the challenges Republicans may face with their base over the legislation, which came in the wake of several high-profile and fatal mass shootings.
Trump endorsed Cornyn in his 2020 reelection, and the former president’s position on guns has at times changed, including supporting background checks in 2019 and floating the idea in 2018 to “take the guns first, go through due process second” or people considered dangerous.
Trump slams Cornyn as ‘RINO’ for bipartisan Senate deal on guns
Former President Trump on Wednesday slammed Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) as a “RINO,” or “Republican in name only,” over the bipartisan gun safety legislation he’d helped negotiate. Trump also …
DIY-HP-LED
Well-Known Member
I figure Mitch is worried about the impact of the J6 hearings, he has 30 something? senators running in November and guys like Ron Johnson are among them. He could have a half a dozen of his senators under federal indictment, depending on what the J6 panel unearths in the mountain of shit they have, or will have on these assholes. From what I can see Ron Johnson is fucked and Lindsey might be in Georgia too.
printer
Well-Known Member
Witch hunt.
printer
Well-Known Member
Rand Paul vows to introduce amendments to gun safety bill
Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) on Wednesday condemned parts of the recently announced bipartisan gun safety deal, describing some provisions as “constitutional deficiencies” and vowing to introduce amendments as it comes to the Senate floor.
“Unfortunately, this legislation was assembled as many are — in secret, absent well placed leaks to journalists,” Paul wrote on Twitter. “There doesn’t appear to be a willingness or time provided to read, understand, debate or amend this bill.”
“I will try anyway,” he continued. “To this end, I will introduce amendments to correct the constitutional deficiencies of this bill and hope my colleagues and the Senate leadership will do the same.”
Senate negotiators on Tuesday released the text of a long-awaited deal on gun safety that would take firearms away from dangerous people and provide billions of dollars in new mental health funding, among other measures.
The Senate quickly voted 64-34 on Tuesday evening to advance the legislation, with Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and 13 other GOP senators supporting the measure.
Senate Majority Leader Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) said he expects the bill to pass the Senate by the end of the week.
Schumer’s timeline aims to get ahead of the Senate’s upcoming two-week recess. But a quick passage of the legislation requires an agreement from all 100 senators, so Paul could delay the final vote if he doesn’t give way.
Paul said he supports some of the bill’s provisions, like a section that includes juvenile records in background checks for gun buyers under the age of 21.
“Looking at the recent criminal past of anyone is a good idea before assessing gun ownership,” Paul said. “However, that idea was paired with many questionable or bad ones in this legislation.”
He specifically raised concerns over a proposed $750 million in funding for states to implement crisis intervention orders, including red flag laws that allow a court to confiscate a firearm from someone deemed to be a significant danger to themselves or others.
Paul raised due process concerns over some states’ existing red flag laws, explicitly referencing those implemented in New York, Washington state and Washington, D.C.
He also criticized a prohibition on using the funds to train or equip school personnel with firearms.
“In fact, we should be doing the opposite, encouraging schools to train and arm proper personnel as desired and needed in their schools,” Paul said.
thehill.com
Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) on Wednesday condemned parts of the recently announced bipartisan gun safety deal, describing some provisions as “constitutional deficiencies” and vowing to introduce amendments as it comes to the Senate floor.
“Unfortunately, this legislation was assembled as many are — in secret, absent well placed leaks to journalists,” Paul wrote on Twitter. “There doesn’t appear to be a willingness or time provided to read, understand, debate or amend this bill.”
“I will try anyway,” he continued. “To this end, I will introduce amendments to correct the constitutional deficiencies of this bill and hope my colleagues and the Senate leadership will do the same.”
Senate negotiators on Tuesday released the text of a long-awaited deal on gun safety that would take firearms away from dangerous people and provide billions of dollars in new mental health funding, among other measures.
The Senate quickly voted 64-34 on Tuesday evening to advance the legislation, with Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and 13 other GOP senators supporting the measure.
Senate Majority Leader Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) said he expects the bill to pass the Senate by the end of the week.
Schumer’s timeline aims to get ahead of the Senate’s upcoming two-week recess. But a quick passage of the legislation requires an agreement from all 100 senators, so Paul could delay the final vote if he doesn’t give way.
Paul said he supports some of the bill’s provisions, like a section that includes juvenile records in background checks for gun buyers under the age of 21.
“Looking at the recent criminal past of anyone is a good idea before assessing gun ownership,” Paul said. “However, that idea was paired with many questionable or bad ones in this legislation.”
He specifically raised concerns over a proposed $750 million in funding for states to implement crisis intervention orders, including red flag laws that allow a court to confiscate a firearm from someone deemed to be a significant danger to themselves or others.
Paul raised due process concerns over some states’ existing red flag laws, explicitly referencing those implemented in New York, Washington state and Washington, D.C.
He also criticized a prohibition on using the funds to train or equip school personnel with firearms.
“In fact, we should be doing the opposite, encouraging schools to train and arm proper personnel as desired and needed in their schools,” Paul said.
Rand Paul vows to introduce amendments to gun safety bill
Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) on Wednesday condemned parts of the recently announced bipartisan gun safety deal, describing some provisions as “constitutional deficiencies” and vowing to introduce amendme…
thehill.com
Roger A. Shrubber
Well-Known Member
it seems like about 10% of what he says is reasonable, then he goes full asshole for the other 90%...Rand Paul vows to introduce amendments to gun safety bill
Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) on Wednesday condemned parts of the recently announced bipartisan gun safety deal, describing some provisions as “constitutional deficiencies” and vowing to introduce amendments as it comes to the Senate floor.
“Unfortunately, this legislation was assembled as many are — in secret, absent well placed leaks to journalists,” Paul wrote on Twitter. “There doesn’t appear to be a willingness or time provided to read, understand, debate or amend this bill.”
“I will try anyway,” he continued. “To this end, I will introduce amendments to correct the constitutional deficiencies of this bill and hope my colleagues and the Senate leadership will do the same.”
Senate negotiators on Tuesday released the text of a long-awaited deal on gun safety that would take firearms away from dangerous people and provide billions of dollars in new mental health funding, among other measures.
The Senate quickly voted 64-34 on Tuesday evening to advance the legislation, with Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and 13 other GOP senators supporting the measure.
Senate Majority Leader Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) said he expects the bill to pass the Senate by the end of the week.
Schumer’s timeline aims to get ahead of the Senate’s upcoming two-week recess. But a quick passage of the legislation requires an agreement from all 100 senators, so Paul could delay the final vote if he doesn’t give way.
Paul said he supports some of the bill’s provisions, like a section that includes juvenile records in background checks for gun buyers under the age of 21.
“Looking at the recent criminal past of anyone is a good idea before assessing gun ownership,” Paul said. “However, that idea was paired with many questionable or bad ones in this legislation.”
He specifically raised concerns over a proposed $750 million in funding for states to implement crisis intervention orders, including red flag laws that allow a court to confiscate a firearm from someone deemed to be a significant danger to themselves or others.
Paul raised due process concerns over some states’ existing red flag laws, explicitly referencing those implemented in New York, Washington state and Washington, D.C.
He also criticized a prohibition on using the funds to train or equip school personnel with firearms.
“In fact, we should be doing the opposite, encouraging schools to train and arm proper personnel as desired and needed in their schools,” Paul said.
Rand Paul vows to introduce amendments to gun safety bill
Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) on Wednesday condemned parts of the recently announced bipartisan gun safety deal, describing some provisions as “constitutional deficiencies” and vowing to introduce amendme…
he's basically just guaranteeing that the bill will get hacked to death, and if it ever passes, it will be so watered down that it has exactly zero effect on fuck all...
printer
Well-Known Member
Party like it is 1799.
Supreme Court expands gun rights in major Second Amendment ruling
The Supreme Court on Thursday struck down a New York state law that made it difficult to obtain a permit to carry a handgun outside the home, marking the justices’ first major opinion on Second Amendment rights in more than a decade.
The 6-3 decision to invalidate New York’s law throws into question the legality of similar restrictions in more than a half dozen other states that give licensing officials wide discretion over concealed carry permitting.
The ruling broke along ideological lines, with the court’s six conservatives joining a majority opinion written by Justice Clarence Thomas.
The New York law at issue required concealed carry permit applicants to demonstrate a special need for a license, beyond a basic desire for self-defense. In striking down the law, the court’s conservatives ruled that the so-called “proper-cause requirement” prevented “law-abiding citizens with ordinary self-defense needs from exercising their right to keep and bear arms.”
“We know of no other constitutional right that an individual may exercise only after demonstrating to government officers some special need,” Thomas wrote for the majority. “That is not how the First Amendment works when it comes to unpopular speech or the free exercise of religion. It is not how the Sixth Amendment works when it comes to a defendant’s right to confront the witnesses against him. And it is not how the Second Amendment works when it comes to public carry for self-defense.”
The court’s three liberals, in dissent, accused the conservative majority of failing to consider “the potentially deadly consequences of its decision.”
The ruling comes after recent mass shootings reignited a wrenching debate over how to balance a constitutional right to bear arms with Americans’ concerns for personal safety in a country with more than 390 million privately owned firearms.
The opinion builds on the court’s last major gun rights decision more than a decade ago. In its 2008 decision in District of Columbia v. Heller, a 5-4 court ruled that the Constitution protects an individual’s right to keep a gun in the home for self-defense. The court in Heller noted that the Second Amendment is “not unlimited,” but left unanswered what restrictions are constitutionally allowed.
The dispute arose after two New York residents were denied unrestricted carry licenses. Backed by an affiliate of the National Rifle Association, the applicants sued the licensing officials and, after losing in the lower courts, filed their ultimately successful appeal to the Supreme Court.
thehill.com
Supreme Court expands gun rights in major Second Amendment ruling
The Supreme Court on Thursday struck down a New York state law that made it difficult to obtain a permit to carry a handgun outside the home, marking the justices’ first major opinion on Second Amendment rights in more than a decade.
The 6-3 decision to invalidate New York’s law throws into question the legality of similar restrictions in more than a half dozen other states that give licensing officials wide discretion over concealed carry permitting.
The ruling broke along ideological lines, with the court’s six conservatives joining a majority opinion written by Justice Clarence Thomas.
The New York law at issue required concealed carry permit applicants to demonstrate a special need for a license, beyond a basic desire for self-defense. In striking down the law, the court’s conservatives ruled that the so-called “proper-cause requirement” prevented “law-abiding citizens with ordinary self-defense needs from exercising their right to keep and bear arms.”
“We know of no other constitutional right that an individual may exercise only after demonstrating to government officers some special need,” Thomas wrote for the majority. “That is not how the First Amendment works when it comes to unpopular speech or the free exercise of religion. It is not how the Sixth Amendment works when it comes to a defendant’s right to confront the witnesses against him. And it is not how the Second Amendment works when it comes to public carry for self-defense.”
The court’s three liberals, in dissent, accused the conservative majority of failing to consider “the potentially deadly consequences of its decision.”
The ruling comes after recent mass shootings reignited a wrenching debate over how to balance a constitutional right to bear arms with Americans’ concerns for personal safety in a country with more than 390 million privately owned firearms.
The opinion builds on the court’s last major gun rights decision more than a decade ago. In its 2008 decision in District of Columbia v. Heller, a 5-4 court ruled that the Constitution protects an individual’s right to keep a gun in the home for self-defense. The court in Heller noted that the Second Amendment is “not unlimited,” but left unanswered what restrictions are constitutionally allowed.
The dispute arose after two New York residents were denied unrestricted carry licenses. Backed by an affiliate of the National Rifle Association, the applicants sued the licensing officials and, after losing in the lower courts, filed their ultimately successful appeal to the Supreme Court.
Supreme Court expands gun rights in major Second Amendment ruling
The Supreme Court on Thursday struck down a New York state law that made it difficult to obtain a permit to carry a handgun outside the home, marking the justices’ first major opinion on Second Ame…
thehill.com
DIY-HP-LED
Well-Known Member
Does the ruling apply to DC, where they live?Party like it is 1799.
Supreme Court expands gun rights in major Second Amendment ruling
The Supreme Court on Thursday struck down a New York state law that made it difficult to obtain a permit to carry a handgun outside the home, marking the justices’ first major opinion on Second Amendment rights in more than a decade.
The 6-3 decision to invalidate New York’s law throws into question the legality of similar restrictions in more than a half dozen other states that give licensing officials wide discretion over concealed carry permitting.
The ruling broke along ideological lines, with the court’s six conservatives joining a majority opinion written by Justice Clarence Thomas.
The New York law at issue required concealed carry permit applicants to demonstrate a special need for a license, beyond a basic desire for self-defense. In striking down the law, the court’s conservatives ruled that the so-called “proper-cause requirement” prevented “law-abiding citizens with ordinary self-defense needs from exercising their right to keep and bear arms.”
“We know of no other constitutional right that an individual may exercise only after demonstrating to government officers some special need,” Thomas wrote for the majority. “That is not how the First Amendment works when it comes to unpopular speech or the free exercise of religion. It is not how the Sixth Amendment works when it comes to a defendant’s right to confront the witnesses against him. And it is not how the Second Amendment works when it comes to public carry for self-defense.”
The court’s three liberals, in dissent, accused the conservative majority of failing to consider “the potentially deadly consequences of its decision.”
The ruling comes after recent mass shootings reignited a wrenching debate over how to balance a constitutional right to bear arms with Americans’ concerns for personal safety in a country with more than 390 million privately owned firearms.
The opinion builds on the court’s last major gun rights decision more than a decade ago. In its 2008 decision in District of Columbia v. Heller, a 5-4 court ruled that the Constitution protects an individual’s right to keep a gun in the home for self-defense. The court in Heller noted that the Second Amendment is “not unlimited,” but left unanswered what restrictions are constitutionally allowed.
The dispute arose after two New York residents were denied unrestricted carry licenses. Backed by an affiliate of the National Rifle Association, the applicants sued the licensing officials and, after losing in the lower courts, filed their ultimately successful appeal to the Supreme Court.
Supreme Court expands gun rights in major Second Amendment ruling
The Supreme Court on Thursday struck down a New York state law that made it difficult to obtain a permit to carry a handgun outside the home, marking the justices’ first major opinion on Second Ame…
Roger A. Shrubber
Well-Known Member
isn't it just fucking amazing how republicans are always eager to throw things back to the states, until the states don't agree with them, then they go all the way to the fucked up, biased, trump appointee befouled supreme court for a guaranteed republican friendly decision....Party like it is 1799.
Supreme Court expands gun rights in major Second Amendment ruling
The Supreme Court on Thursday struck down a New York state law that made it difficult to obtain a permit to carry a handgun outside the home, marking the justices’ first major opinion on Second Amendment rights in more than a decade.
The 6-3 decision to invalidate New York’s law throws into question the legality of similar restrictions in more than a half dozen other states that give licensing officials wide discretion over concealed carry permitting.
The ruling broke along ideological lines, with the court’s six conservatives joining a majority opinion written by Justice Clarence Thomas.
The New York law at issue required concealed carry permit applicants to demonstrate a special need for a license, beyond a basic desire for self-defense. In striking down the law, the court’s conservatives ruled that the so-called “proper-cause requirement” prevented “law-abiding citizens with ordinary self-defense needs from exercising their right to keep and bear arms.”
“We know of no other constitutional right that an individual may exercise only after demonstrating to government officers some special need,” Thomas wrote for the majority. “That is not how the First Amendment works when it comes to unpopular speech or the free exercise of religion. It is not how the Sixth Amendment works when it comes to a defendant’s right to confront the witnesses against him. And it is not how the Second Amendment works when it comes to public carry for self-defense.”
The court’s three liberals, in dissent, accused the conservative majority of failing to consider “the potentially deadly consequences of its decision.”
The ruling comes after recent mass shootings reignited a wrenching debate over how to balance a constitutional right to bear arms with Americans’ concerns for personal safety in a country with more than 390 million privately owned firearms.
The opinion builds on the court’s last major gun rights decision more than a decade ago. In its 2008 decision in District of Columbia v. Heller, a 5-4 court ruled that the Constitution protects an individual’s right to keep a gun in the home for self-defense. The court in Heller noted that the Second Amendment is “not unlimited,” but left unanswered what restrictions are constitutionally allowed.
The dispute arose after two New York residents were denied unrestricted carry licenses. Backed by an affiliate of the National Rifle Association, the applicants sued the licensing officials and, after losing in the lower courts, filed their ultimately successful appeal to the Supreme Court.
Supreme Court expands gun rights in major Second Amendment ruling
The Supreme Court on Thursday struck down a New York state law that made it difficult to obtain a permit to carry a handgun outside the home, marking the justices’ first major opinion on Second Ame…
printer
Well-Known Member
Senate advances gun safety bill, overcoming filibuster
The Senate advanced a bipartisan gun safety bill past the threat of a filibuster Thursday, setting up a final vote for later in the day or Friday on the furthest-reaching gun legislation that Congress has considered in decades.
The bill, a response to mass shootings in Uvalde, Texas, and Buffalo, N.Y., would enhance background checks for gun buyers younger than 21, provide money to administer red flag laws and crack down on straw purchasers.
The measure advanced in a 65-34 vote. At least 60 votes were needed.
thehill.com
The Senate advanced a bipartisan gun safety bill past the threat of a filibuster Thursday, setting up a final vote for later in the day or Friday on the furthest-reaching gun legislation that Congress has considered in decades.
The bill, a response to mass shootings in Uvalde, Texas, and Buffalo, N.Y., would enhance background checks for gun buyers younger than 21, provide money to administer red flag laws and crack down on straw purchasers.
The measure advanced in a 65-34 vote. At least 60 votes were needed.
Senate advances gun safety bill, overcoming filibuster
The Senate advanced a bipartisan gun safety bill past the threat of a filibuster Thursday, setting up a final vote for later in the day or Friday on the furthest-reaching gun legislation that Congr…
thehill.com
Roger A. Shrubber
Well-Known Member
it's pretty fucking weak, but when you're falling down a cliff onto bullets, a weak handhold is better than no hand holdSenate advances gun safety bill, overcoming filibuster
The Senate advanced a bipartisan gun safety bill past the threat of a filibuster Thursday, setting up a final vote for later in the day or Friday on the furthest-reaching gun legislation that Congress has considered in decades.
The bill, a response to mass shootings in Uvalde, Texas, and Buffalo, N.Y., would enhance background checks for gun buyers younger than 21, provide money to administer red flag laws and crack down on straw purchasers.
The measure advanced in a 65-34 vote. At least 60 votes were needed.
Senate advances gun safety bill, overcoming filibuster
The Senate advanced a bipartisan gun safety bill past the threat of a filibuster Thursday, setting up a final vote for later in the day or Friday on the furthest-reaching gun legislation that Congr…